How often do you see the modern media run stories about all the historical problems with the Koran?
The media doesn’t even subject the book of Mormon to much scrutiny even though it gives a science fiction history of North America that left behind zero archaeological evidence.
But Mormonism is only of interest to our liberal establishment to the extent that it has joined cultural and political forces with Evangelical conservatives. Attacking the book of Mormon would not stop the cultural influence of Evangelicalism, so our establishment doesn’t bother.
When I first saw this stupid article in the New York Times, “Camels Have No Business In Genesis,” I was going to ignore it. Too stupid to bother with. Then, when I was driving back home from dropping off a child at school, I heard another stupid piece on NPR. Here’s the summary:
New research revealing when camels were domesticated by humans shows that many depictions of camels in scripture may be off by hundreds of years. Renee Montagne talks to Carol Meyers, a professor of religious studies at Duke University, about what such anachronisms tell us about the genesis of religious texts.
Why do I call these claims “stupid”? I don’t call them that because they are wrong or unbelieving (though the latter would qualify, according to the book of Proverbs). I call them stupid because they act like it is the easiest thing in the world to prove a universal negative. They treat evidence of 12th-century BC domesticated camels as disproof of 3rd-millennium domesticated camels. But the most that evidence can mean is they haven’t found earlier evidence (yet?). There was a time when the entire scholarly world “knew” that Troy was a city that Homer made up. Then someone decided that the absence of archaeological confirmation up to this point is not the same as disproving Homer. He went to the area and searched and found the ruins of the imaginary city. In other words, he decided that the testimony of ancient literature (The Iliad and The Odyssey) deserved to be treated as evidence and to guide archaeological research.
For domesticated camels going all the way back to the patriarchs, you don’t have to wait for evidence to be gathered. It already exists! You can download a paper about it here—“The Domestication of the Camel in the ancient Near East,” by Titus Kennedy (Bible and Spade 23 2010). Yes, it was written in 2010! The claim in the New York Times and from NPR, that this is some kind of “new discovery,” is all mendacious propaganda. These are recycled claims.
I’ll quote from the conclusion:
As a result of the aforementioned data, many archaeologists now believe the domestication of the camel occurred sometime in the 3rd millennium B.C. Scarre states an early domestication date for both species of camel, writing that “both the dromedary (the one-humped camel of Arabia) and the Bactrian camel (the two-humped camel of Central Asia) had been domesticated since before 2000 BC.” Other scholars, such as Saggs, also agree with an early camel domestication date by “proto-Arabs” of the arid regions of the Arabian Peninsula. Macdonald’s research in southeast Arabia has apparently revealed more evidence. According to him, camels were probably first domesticated for milk, hair, leather, and meat, and subsequently travel across previously impassible regions in Arabia as early as the 3rd millennium B.C. For those who adhere to a 12th century B.C. or later theory of domestic camel use in the ancient Near East, a great deal of archaeological and textual evidence must be either ignored or explained away. Bones, hairs, wall paintings, models, inscriptions, seals, documents, statues, and stele from numerous archaeological sites all suggest the camel in use as a domestic animal during the 3rd millennium B.C. in the ancient Near East. The wide geographical and chronological distribution of findings related to camel domestication further strengthen the argument that the camel was domesticated far before the 12th century B.C., and with each new discovery the evidence will likely reinforce this theory.
It may well be that the camel became more widely used in the 12th-century BC, thanks to a rising standard of living. But the Patriarchs of Genesis were multi-millionaire entrepreneurs. As my friend Jon Barlow aptly observed:
When you hear archaeologists and historians on NPR tell you that Abraham wouldn’t have had camels, and thus the scriptures must be wrong on this point, just remember that one rich guy in your hometown who bought the real pinball machine for his kids, or that eccentric doctor who drove a Maserati in rural Mississippi. Abraham was from another place, had lots of wealth, and could import a Maserati if he wanted. You may find a million reasons to distrust the scriptures, but this camel thing is the lamest of diversions.
But why are the media so hungry for such diversions that they will grab such lame stuff? It isn’t hard to figure out. It is about Obama’s failing revolution. It is about Liberalism. In addition to the Tea Party refusal to submit to the Democrat utopian agenda, the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate has recently reminded our Blue State overlords that there are millions of Americans who take their Bibles seriously as a guide to ethics and life. The pansexual, totalitarian agenda needs these people to lose faith, lose confidence, and surrender themselves to the new god, the secular state.
For Liberals, the Bible is more dangerous and obstructive than the Constitution will ever be.